Five members from Canada’s 2018 world junior team (Hart, McLeod, Dube, Foote and Formenton) told to surrender to police, facing sexual assault charges

[Sasha Orlov]

My own thought is given how the complainant reported this back in 2018, but police took no action - I'm not quite sure how the Crown is going to get past a Jordan application - no matter what the merits of the case. That being said however defence would still need to show actual prejudice based on the delay, which I'm not sure they can.

Jordan clock doesn’t start until charges get filed so they have plenty of time still

 

[Jared Dunn]

I haven't used the word gross to describe anyone who is suggesting there is evidence the guys were at fault....in fact none of the takes I have cited as gross have presented any evidence at all...

The girl very well could be money/fame/clout chasing....and the guys could be guilty as hell. Nobody knows, yet a few people are quite certain their guilty and even if they are found innocent they are still guilty. That is pretty gross.

The overwhelming evidence points to a heinous crime being committed, but the people choosing to not bend over backwards to live in a world where these fine young gentlemen did nothing wrong are the gross ones.

Also are you genuinely arguing that the legal system doesn't routinely fail victims of SA? Everything you've said in this thread is just one giant fart

 

[MXD]

yes men in the sense of the word thats a man as in something to aspire to, a real man would never treat a woman like that, only boys(in the sense of morality and maturity) would.


I think you're trying to be outraged for nothing here

This is a case where the criminal liability of a few people is at play, and boys are typically "less" (or a least differently) liable than men.

I do get what you're trying to say though. I even agree in part. I just don't think it's the good forum to raise it.

 

[Edgelord]

You have thoughts that don't align with reality I guess. 0 outrage here.

well yea when I said men wouldn't do this boys would, its not a literal statement

 

[roon]

Nope, I literally never said that. I get it though, trying to deflect after getting called out for spewing nonsense that you never bothered to look up just because it "felt right". At least you're ousting yourself for what you really are.

Some girls are into some weird stuff man. Or maybe it is as she described and they need to be thrown in prison.

There are just far to many instances of peoples lives being ruined by false accusations to simply take her word for it. Let both sides present evidence and we will see what shakes out.

"Total BS easily disproven with a simple search. There are FAR more victims that suffer in silence because the legal system overwhelmingly favors predators in criminal cases, not to mention the stigma and trauma attached with being a sexual assault/rape victim that they never want to relive."


The above is literally your response to me suggesting that there are far to many instances of lives being ruined by false accusations (that number is anything north of 0 by the way). You suggested that because there was somehow FAR more victims that suffered in silence that it negated the fact that there are far too many examples of lives ruined by false accusations. You literally did exactly what I am suggesting you did and now you try to deny it. Never change internet.

 

[inthewings]

I was calling them boys almost in a derogatory fashion

Yeah, I get the you're intending 'boys' as a pejorative and don't have ill intent with it

 

[Ezekial]

well yea when I said men wouldn't do this boys would, its not a literal statement

Men do it all the time though. So I disagree with your stupid notion.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

So look - if you have sex with a woman without consent you are committing rape. 100%. The full moral blameworthiness of that act falls on you.

That being said - if you are a woman, you drink to excess, you don't have other people to look out for you - you are putting yourself in a vulnerable position. That does not mean it's okay for a man to rape you! But if you are a father you should tell your daughter to not drink to excess in a situation that could put you at risk of sexual assault.

I liken it to this - you shouldn't walk down the street in a bad neighbourhood flashing a wallet full of money. If you get robbed the responsibility is 100% on the robber. Morally you've done nothing wrong. But you did put yourself at risk.

It's the reason why cars and houses have locks.

You're likening a human being and her body to a wallet full of cash.

As I and others stated earlier, it's important to teach kids about consent, about how alcohol makes things very muddy, about respecting one another. But when you liken a woman to cash, you've already erased her humanity.

 

[Rich Nixon]

That is in fact what a not guilty verdict means by definition. It means the charge wasn't proven and innocence is assumed.


I'm sorry its tough to connect the dots - but the charges are a result of her accusation and the result of the investigation by police. They found probable cause to charge the defendants. I'm not familiar with Canada's standards around probable cause - but i would guess they very much err on the side of the victim.

The fact that Alex Formenton is facing charges could have everything to do with her accusation which would make it then very important whether or not that accusation is false or not. If it is a false accusation - then we move on to why would a person do that? Thats where the fame/clout etc would come in to play.

If you need me to explain it further I can certainly try.

A civil suit was already settled by Hockey Canada. The accusation in combination with evidence discovered in the course of the police investigation is the reason for charges. That doesn't tell us anything more than what I've just said, but it's important to recognize the saga that led to this and that it isn't an accusation alone at issue here.

when I said men wouldn't do that, that's how I meant it

Yes, and it's irrelevant semantics. I just thought it was funny that you'd had a "that's SEMANTICS!" moment about material facts a couple pages ago and are continuing to engage in very silly semantics.

 

[Edgelord]

Quit while you're behind, b.

man people really missed what I was trying to say

 

[AnInjuredJasonZucker]

I was calling them boys almost in a derogatory fashion

Oh, I know. And it's still part of hard-coding excuses for men.

 

[MXD]

SHE'S DOING THIS FOR THE MONEY AND THE FAME!!!!!

Lol WTF we don't know her name and she already got the money.

 

[Edgelord]

Men do it all the time though. So I disagree with your stupid notion.

then I would say those aren't real men but boys in mens bodies

 

[4thline]

My own thought is given how the complainant reported this back in 2018, but police took no action - I'm not quite sure how the Crown is going to get past a Jordan application - no matter what the merits of the case. That being said however defence would still need to show actual prejudice based on the delay, which I'm not sure they can.

I thought Jordan was from date of charge not from start of investigation?

 

[Ezekial]

then I would say those aren't real men but boys in mens bodies

It wasn't that deep of a thought, you don't need to continue to explain it.

 

[roon]

The overwhelming evidence points to a heinous crime being committed, but the people choosing to not bend over backwards to live in a world where these fine young gentlemen did nothing wrong are the gross ones.

Also are you genuinely arguing that the legal system doesn't routinely fail victims of SA? Everything you've said in this thread is just one giant fart

I'm not suggesting that the legal system doesn't fail people....SA victims or otherwise. I'm saying that it is better that 10 guilty people go free than a single innocent person be locked up. That and to simply wait for the legal system to play out before crucifying anyone.

 

[Yukon Joe]

That is in fact what a not guilty verdict means by definition. It means the charge wasn't proven and innocence is assumed.

The presumption of innocence is a legal fiction. It's an important fiction, don't get me wrong, but it only applies to the courts itself.

In a criminal trial the test is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". A judge can be 98% sure that the Accused person did the thing, but if they have a 2% doubt they must acquit. (note - no court will ever use numbers in that fashion - used for illustration only).

But that doesn't mean the rest of the world should use that same standard. Hell the courts themselves don't use that same standard! The test in a civil trial is only "proof on a balance of probabilities". So 51% sure / 49% not sure is enough. This is how, famously, OJ Simpson was acquitted at his criminal trial, but held liable on his civil trial.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

man people really missed what I was trying to say

I get what you were saying. that in your mind someone who is a "man" in terms of your definition of what a man really is, wouldn't do such a thing.

I think it's getting lost because of the heated nature of this topic and that "boys will be boys" historically has been an element of these cases.

 

[Edgelord]

It wasn't that deep of a thought, you don't need to continue to explain it.

if you knew what I meant then why did you bust my balls?

 

[Ezekial]

if you knew what I meant then why did you bust my balls?

Because referring to them as boys minimizes the severity of their possible criminal act. I already said that, you said I was outraged.

 

[Yukon Joe]

You're likening a human being and her body to a wallet full of cash.

As I and others stated earlier, it's important to teach kids about consent, about how alcohol makes things very muddy, about respecting one another. But when you liken a woman to cash, you've already erased her humanity.

No, with respect I don't think so.

Two different things can be true at the same time. "Men should not rape women" and "women should avoid putting themselves in vulnerable situations" can both be true.

 

[Edgelord]

I get what you were saying. that in your mind someone who is a "man" in terms of your definition of what a man really is, wouldn't do such a thing.

I think it's getting lost because of the heated nature of this topic and that "boys will be boys" historically has been an element of these cases.

100% I was raised that you aspired to be a real man, and a real man would never rape a woman. In fact the exact opposite, they would have had the balls to put a stop to what happened that night. Sure it maybe a lil misogynistic but it is what it is

 

[Rich Nixon]

SHE'S DOING THIS FOR THE MONEY AND THE FAME!!!!!

Lol WTF we don't know her name and she already got the money.

And she doesn't have the power to unilaterally press criminal charges. She is not a prosecutor.

 

[4thline]

@Yukon Joe @MXD

assuming the the defendants end up on the stand, how much latitude would the Crown get in challenging their claims of getting consent, questioning player 1's reason for being afraid she would go to the police, etc

 

[Yukon Joe]

100% I was raised that you aspired to be a real man, and a real man would never rape a woman. In fact the exact opposite, they would have had the balls to put a stop to what happened that night. Sure it maybe a lil misogynistic but it is what it is

I mean - I get what you're saying, but our criminal courts are full of "men" who do deplorable things.